Arthur v. Dodge

by Morrison Waite

United States Supreme Court

101 U.S. 34

Arthur  v.  Dodge

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

Between Aug. 28 and Oct. 18, 1874, Dodge and his partners, constituting the firm of Phelps, Dodge, & Co., imported into the port of New York sundry invoices of 'tin in plates,' 'terne plates,' and 'tagger's tin,' whereon Arthur, the then collector, imposed a duty of fifteen per cent ad valorem, which the firm paid under protest. The following is a copy of one of their protests, the others being substantially like it:--

'SIR,-We do hereby protest against the payment of fifteen per cent charged on sixteen hundred and fifty (1650) boxes tin plates of the dutiable value of $14,422, gold, contained in our entry made on the twenty-third day of September, 1874, per S. S. 'Algeria,' from Liverpool, England, in cases marked P. D. & Co., and various other marks, claiming that under existing laws said goods are only liable to a duty of ninety per cent of fifteen per cent or thirteen and one-half per cent, because title 33, sect. 2503, of the codification of the revenue laws provides certain rates of duty on articles which are mentioned in Schedule E of sect. 2504, with the provisions that all articles mentioned in 2503 shall have the benefit of ten per cent reduction-one of the provisions-on all metals not herein otherwise provided for, and on all manufactures of, &c., &c., includes tin plate, and pay the amount exacted in order to get possession of the goods, and look to you for refund of the same.'

The Secretary of the Treasury having, on appeal, affirmed the decision of the collector, the firm brought this suit to recover the difference between the amount paid and ninety per cent thereof.

There was a judgment for the plaintiffs. Arthur then sued out this writ of error.

The Solicitor-General for the plaintiffs in error.

Mr. John E. Parsons, contra.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

Notes